Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/389

 (an elliptical expression); thus e.g. , &c. (see the Lexicon) stands for like the English to close (sc. a bargain) with any one;  (sc. ) equivalent to to be resentful,, &c.; so also   (beside );  for , ;  for  to take away any one’s sin (to forgive), , 26, ;  (sc. ) equivalent to to reach after something, ,.

6. may take a second object, generally in the form of a participle or adjective and necessarily indeterminate, to define more exactly the action or state in which the object is perceived, e.g.  ;. Frequently, however, the second object is expressed by a separate clause. This is especially frequent with, e.g. and God saw the light, that it was good; , , , , , , , , , ; so with , , ,  (with two objects);.

7. In certain instances serves apparently to introduce or to emphasize a nominative. This cannot be regarded as a reappearance of the original substantival meaning of the, since all unquestionable examples of the kind belong to the later Books of the Old Testament. They are rather (apart from textual errors or other explanations) cases of virtual dependence on an implied understood. The constant use of to indicate a clause governed by the verb, necessarily led at length to the use of  generally as a defining particle irrespective of a governing verb. So in the Hebrew of the Mishna (see above, ) and  are prefixed even to a nominative without any special emphasis.

Naturally the above does not apply to any of the places in which is not the, but a preposition (on , cf. ), e.g. ,  ( here, however, has probably been interpolated from verse 36, where it is wanting); nor the places in which the accusative is subordinate to a passive (according to ) or to a verb of wanting as in  and , see below, z. In   governs like a verb, being followed by.

Other cases are clearly due to attraction to a following relative pronoun in the accusative (, ; but a, to, must be omitted, with the LXX, as a later addition), or the accusative depends on a verbal idea, virtually contained in what has gone before, and consequently present to the speaker’s mind as governing the accusative. Thus (the verbal idea contained in  verse 25 is they had to take charge of); in   implies it was given up or they gave him;  is equivalent to search now for; in   is used in the sense of noli aegre ferre ;  he had the brazier before him; in  a verb like I esteem is mentally supplied before. On, , see below, aa.—Aposiopesis occurs in (do I mean); still more boldly in , where either  or  is to be supplied.

Setting aside a few undoubtedly corrupt passages there still remain the